In response to Apple's newly revised rules for subscription applications on iOS, Hulu Plus has removed a link to its website where users can buy a subscription outside of the confines of the App Store.

Previously, the Hulu application for iPad had a link that told users to visit the site hulu.com/plus to subscribe to the service. But as noted by Peter Kafka of All Things D, the login screen for the software has been revised, and no longer offers a link for users to subscribe to Hulu Plus.

Hulu does not offer users the ability to subscribe to its "Plus" service through Apple's official App Store for iOS devices. If Hulu were to allow users to easily subscribe through App Store software, the video streaming service would have to provide Apple with a 30 percent cut of those sales.

Apple and service providers like Hulu appeared to be headed for a collision earlier this year, when Apple banned links to out-of-app purchases. Apple's revised App Store policies, unveiled in February, banned links to external websites to purchase content or subscriptions, with a deadline to comply by June 30.

While that ban remains, Apple earlier this month backed down from a requirement that subscriptions also be offered within App Store software at the same price as it is made available elsewhere. That concession from Apple allows content providers like Hulu to continue to have iOS applications without the option to subscribe from within the software.

Instead, for now with Hulu, users must subscribe to the Hulu Plus service on their own, and can still do so by visiting the official website through the iPhone or iPad Mobile Safari browser. Then their username and password can be entered when the official Hulu Plus application is installed on the device.

Apple's change of heart came after one prominent content provider, the Financial Times, decided to create an HTML5-optimized website rather than comply with Apple's in-app subscription rules and provide a 30 percent cut to the iPhone maker. While Apple maintains control over App Store software, any sites loaded through the Safari browser on iOS devices can do as they please.

While Hulu has updated its application to comply with Apple's new rules, some other major services such as Netflix and Rhapsody still have "buy" buttons in their applications. And the Amazon Kindle software also includes a link to allow users to buy e-books for the Kindle platform through Amazon's website.

"Hard to believe that Amazon will get rid of its Kindle iOS apps altogether, since they're a key feature of the Kindle ecosystem," Kafka wrote. "But dropping the app's 'buy button' will be a real drag for the bookseller too."

Maybe they could have come up with something along the lines of if you already have your own subscription model with your own collection of fees etc - then we (Apple) will only take a 10% cut as a conduit to your content - but if you are new to the subscription based online content delivery game - we will take care of the mess of managing subscriptions and collecting fees and validating users etc - for 30% fee per transaction.

I don't see how this is anything but monopolistic business practices, even after dropping the ridiculous requirement that in app pricing is the same price as elsewhere. (Which I am sure would have triggered an investigation had they not backed down.) I do love Apple's products and I respect their right to approve or deny apps, but in my opinion these subscription policies cross the line.

Quote:

Originally Posted by addabox

Being an Apple basher means you never, ever have to acknowledge success.

The real issue is that Apple's in-app purchase system wouldn't be able to handle Amazon's thousands of books even if they wanted to support it. There is a limit of 3000 unique IAP items per app which is impractical in Amazon's case.

I pay for it! It's replaced my cable bill which was $90 a month to $8 a month for Hulu and the only thing that's changed is I watch shows a day later... no big deal for me.

Do they have all the major ones available the next day and let you go back through the catalog? I know the free version of Hulu had restrictions on both that could vary widely between shows. How about the quality, is the max still their 480p?

Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"

Is anyone here actually paying for Hulu Plus? I do pay for Netflix streaming.

I, like you, do not pay for Hulu Plus (although I used to watch stuff on Hulu when it was free). When Hulu went to Plus (pay), I sent them an email and told them to 'shove it', their pay service. You can watch TV shows for free on the network websites or on FIOS or Comcast 'On Demand', why would I pay for something I can watch for free..........

I do subscribe and pay for Netflix streaming & one at a time BluRay's........

I, like you, do not pay for Hulu Plus (although I used to watch stuff on Hulu when it was free). When Hulu went to Plus (pay), I sent them an email and told them to 'shove it', their pay service. You can watch TV shows for free on the network websites or on FIOS or Comcast 'On Demand', why would I pay for something I can watch for free..........

I do subscribe and pay for Netflix streaming & one at a time BluRay's........

I disagree with your sentiment. A great many Americans pay for content they can otherwise get for "free". When you pay for a cable or satellite subscription you are also paying for the convenience of having all your local channels broadcast through that same box without having to switch to an antenna input.

You also pay for many other stations that also include commercials. I don't think it's unreasonable for Hulu to charge for their service even if it can be had elsewhere, however, I personally don't see the utility of their service over free services if the only effort to launch a different website or app, but that's an issue with their business model not their hubris. If they could guarantee, for me as the consumer, that all shows will be available the following day and not be removed from viewing at some wonky timeframe I'd consider their service.

Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"

Maybe they could have come up with something along the lines of if you already have your own subscription model with your own collection of fees etc - then we (Apple) will only take a 10% cut as a conduit to your content - but if you are new to the subscription based online content delivery game - we will take care of the mess of managing subscriptions and collecting fees and validating users etc - for 30% fee per transaction.

This is an interesting idea. I've seen this revenue share approach in other areas and seems to suit most parties.

So Hulu can't poach Steve's customers while they are a guest on Steve's devices. That is just being a polite guest at one of Steve's garden parties.

Netflix and Rhapsody and especially Amazon are all pissing into Steve's punchbowl. Like party guests who make things uncomfortable for everyone else, they need security to ask them nicely (ONLY ONCE!) to please leave. If they don't, they need to be "escorted" to the door. And once outside, they deserve to have the living shit beat out of them.

Sounds fair to me!

People went to Steve's garden party because they knew those guests would be there. Kick out those guests and you might find many others decide to leave as well.

So Hulu can't poach Steve's customers while they are a guest on Steve's devices. That is just being a polite guest at one of Steve's garden parties.

Netflix and Rhapsody and especially Amazon are all pissing into Steve's punchbowl. Like party guests who make things uncomfortable for everyone else, they need security to ask them nicely (ONLY ONCE!) to please leave. If they don't, they need to be "escorted" to the door. And once outside, they deserve to have the living shit beat out of them.

Sounds fair to me!

Substituting "Steve" for Apple the corporation is totally weird IMHO. In addition you're setting yourself up for a huge letdown when "Steve" is no longer in charge at Apple. Honestly they'll do just fine even with no "Steve" running the show. Making this all about a particular personality, as tho someone is attacking your friend "Steve", is just really strange.

So Hulu can't poach Steve's customers while they are a guest on Steve's devices. That is just being a polite guest at one of Steve's garden parties.

Netflix and Rhapsody and especially Amazon are all pissing into Steve's punchbowl. Like party guests who make things uncomfortable for everyone else, they need security to ask them nicely (ONLY ONCE!) to please leave. If they don't, they need to be "escorted" to the door. And once outside, they deserve to have the living shit beat out of them.

Sounds fair to me!

Seems a little silly to me that subscribing outside the app is OK but the app can't mention it.

I wonder what percentage of 'average' users will be able to deduce that they need to go the website to subscribe, without being specifically told or provided a link. My guess is that a large number will be completely stymied. (opinion based on unfortunate amounts of time doing tech support, and a generally low opinion of the 'average' person's deductive powers.)

I don't see how this is anything but monopolistic business practices, even after dropping the ridiculous requirement that in app pricing is the same price as elsewhere. (Which I am sure would have triggered an investigation had they not backed down.) I do love Apple's products and I respect their right to approve or deny apps, but in my opinion these subscription policies cross the line.

The App Store is a store. If the App Store was a brick-and-mortar store, would you feel the same way? Best Buy sells Kindles, and they take a cut on each sale. Say what you will about the cut being for warehousing, overhead, etc. Amazon can do all this buy themselves. They can sell directly to their customers. Why do they sell at Best Buy then and make less money? The real value Best Buy provides Amazon is that they deliver customers. X amount of customers go to Best Buy every day, walk through the aisles, and often make unplanned purchases. That's what the cut is for.

Now, do you think Best Buy would tolerate Amazon opening up a kiosk in their store, and start selling Kindle's to Best Buy's customers without paying a cut? "But, but... Best Buy isn't providing them warehousing space, why should they get a cut??"

Or how about Amazon putting a huge sign up above the Kindle stand telling people to go to Amazon.com so they can buy it cheaper? You think Best Buy would allow that?

Now that Apple has relaxed some rules, they're almost more lenient than brick-and-mortar stores. Also, Apple doesn't have a clear majority share of the market, so it's tough to argue any monopolistic tendencies. All they have is contracts with developers who choose to use their store.

The App Store is a store. If the App Store was a brick-and-mortar store, would you feel the same way? Best Buy sells Kindles, and they take a cut on each sale. Say what you will about the cut being for warehousing, overhead, etc. Amazon can do all this buy themselves. They can sell directly to their customers. Why do they sell at Best Buy then and make less money? The real value Best Buy provides Amazon is that they deliver customers. X amount of customers go to Best Buy every day, walk through the aisles, and often make unplanned purchases. That's what the cut is for.

Now, do you think Best Buy would tolerate Amazon opening up a kiosk in their store, and start selling Kindle's to Best Buy's customers without paying a cut? "But, but... Best Buy isn't providing them warehousing space, why should they get a cut??"

Or how about Amazon putting a huge sign up above the Kindle stand telling people to go to Amazon.com so they can buy it cheaper? You think Best Buy would allow that?

Now that Apple has relaxed some rules, they're almost more lenient than brick-and-mortar stores. Also, Apple doesn't have a clear majority share of the market, so it's tough to argue any monopolistic tendencies. All they have is contracts with developers who choose to use their store.

False analogy, Best Buy doesn't take a cut of every BOOK sold on the Kindles sold by Best Buy.

Monopolistic, huh? I guess the iPad is the ONLY place to buy Kindle books or watch Hulu, right? Stop throwing around the "M" word when you have no idea what you're talking about. Happens far too often.

False analogy, Best Buy doesn't take a cut of every BOOK sold on the Kindles sold by Best Buy.

Why Apple/MS/Google has to take a cut of a book sold by Amazon?

Actually analogies don't have to be exact. Best Buy the brick and mortar store is the platform that Amazon is selling it's kindle's from. If Amazon opened up a Kiosk and sold books from it instead of kindles, the analogy still works.

Best Buy provided a platform for which amazon in this instance or any other company in real life choose to sell from. That costs money. Amazon used to charge way more than the 30% they currently charge for magazines and newspapers to do business on their kindle platform. Apple actually forced the price down. Amazon used to collect 70% and give back 30%....but don't let facts get in the way of the HATE APPLE crowd.

Actually analogies don't have to be exact. Best Buy the brick and mortar store is the platform that Amazon is selling it's kindle's from. If Amazon opened up a Kiosk and sold books from it instead of kindles, the analogy still work

No, because Amazon is not selling any book from Apple infrastructure.

The analogy in this case is Ikea selling its catalogue on a kiosk. The kiosk doesn't have a cut on any thing sold though this catalogue

False analogy, Best Buy doesn't take a cut of every BOOK sold on the Kindles sold by Best Buy.

Why Apple/MS/Google has to take a cut of a book sold by Amazon?

Best-buy doesn't give shelfspace to free products on which it earns no commission which can serve as delivery mechanisms to paid products on which it would also earn no commission.

Otherwise why ever sell paid content on the App store? If I'm selling a game I can just make the game free and charge for the level packs that you buy from my website. Apple pays all my distribution costs and I make all the profit.

Best-buy doesn't give shelfspace to free products on which it earns no commission which can serve as delivery mechanisms to paid products on which it would also earn no commission.

Well, if they think the need to, they can make all the apps non free. Best Buy takes any revenue from books sld on Kindles?

Quote:

Originally Posted by cloudgazer

Otherwise why ever sell paid content on the App store? If I'm selling a game I can just make the game free and charge for the level packs that you buy from my website. Apple pays all my distribution costs and I make all the profit.

Best-buy doesn't give shelfspace to free products on which it earns no commission which can serve as delivery mechanisms to paid products on which it would also earn no commission.

I bet they wouldn't mind if they earned a $499 cover charge per customer and said products enticed more customers through the doors!

Seriously though, all these analogies are worthless bullshit. Everyone knows this has absolutely nothing at all to do with Apple getting "their fair share" and everything to do with locking users into the Apple ecosystem before Google and others crack the tablet UX code and flood the market with iPad clones.

And that's not a slight on Apple either. As long as they aren't breaking any laws they are well within their right to push home the first mover advantage they have with the iPad.

False analogy, Best Buy doesn't take a cut of every BOOK sold on the Kindles sold by Best Buy.

Why Apple/MS/Google has to take a cut of a book sold by Amazon?

If Best Buy sold physical books in their store, yes they would take a cut.

The analogy is PHYSICAL TO DIGITAL.

If Amazon or another company is going to sell content in Apple's store (which includes In-App), Apple has a right to take a cut.

All Apple says is that Amazon or other developers can't post a "sign" saying "BUY OUR PRODUCTS CHEAPER ON OUR SITE". Best Buy wouldn't allow a similar sign in their store.

The analogy is that the App Store is equivalent to a brick-and-mortar store and doesn't have any different policies. It has nothing to do with warehousing and distribution; it has to do with delivering customers.

The cut that Best Buy takes when it sells just about anything is primarily because it DELIVERS CUSTOMERS and provides a purchasing environment.

That is what Apple does. Shouldn't Apple get a cut? They aren't a charity. Do you not agree that Apple provides value to developers? It provides a digital environment (like a brick-and-mortar store) where a HUGE number of customers with credit cards on file can purchase content; further, it provides an extremely easy way for said customers to purchase additional content. Is that not valuable? Apple isn't saying developers can't sell their content independently. They just can't advertise that fact INSIDE Apple's STORE, which includes In-App.

If you're hung up on the whole "distribution cost" (which is not all companies pay retail stores for), then change the analogy to a third-party salesperson who sells on commission. When a salesperson delivers a customer to a company, they get a percentage cut. If they continue to sell additional products or services to that customer, they get a cut. Usually, the company is not allowed to actively "poach" that customer from the salesperson, as that is their customer that they delivered. If the company doesn't want to pay a commission, they can deliver their own customers. But the company usually can't contact that customer and tell them they'll sell it to them cheaper if they buy directly instead of through the salesperson.

It sounds like you're against capitalism. Apple is following the principles of capitalism: if you provide value, you can demand compensation. If people don't think the value provided warrants the cost, they don't pay.

Otherwise why ever sell paid content on the App store? If I'm selling a game I can just make the game free and charge for the level packs that you buy from my website. Apple pays all my distribution costs and I make all the profit.

The levels which are activated in the case of games are downloaded prior to being activated ( in general) - this makes Apple the provider of delivery. Once the Kindle is downloaded it can access it's own servers to get it's own content -content which Amazon has already paid for.

The store is the Kindle store, not the App store.

In fact most people here are using the term App Store to disguise the fact that once downloaded, the app is not on the App Store it is on the iPad.

False analogy, Best Buy doesn't take a cut of every BOOK sold on the Kindles sold by Best Buy.

Why Apple/MS/Google has to take a cut of a book sold by Amazon?

Regarding a Kindle sale at Best Buy -- Best Buy does not give the Kindle product away. Amazon does give the Kindle App away free, and earns their profit solely from the purchase of books. Apple gets no revenue from offering the Kindle app in their App Store, nor many other free apps. Apple gets no revenue at all from free apps, and yet Apple's costs for the App Store infrastructure are significant, as you should imagine. Apple needs to get revenue to support the environment and they should.

Amazon's costs for their infrastructure is also quite significant, and they do not given away product for free. They can't and shouldn't have to.

For Apple, Best Buy, Amazon, just because the marginal costs are likely very small, it doesn't mean they should charge just a small fraction of that marginal cost. Think bankruptcy!

Best Buy in my area did sell some books, mostly computer related, but I would be naive to believe Best Buy did not take a cut of the price. For CDs, and DVDs and Blurays, of course Best Buy takes a cut. LIkely they buy on discount, then sell for a profit, on consignment or purchase outright. Items a store does not sell goes to a discount broker who pays a further discount, and jacks up the price to pay business expenses, salaries, and for profit.

Would you believe it? Amazon also buys the books from the publishers, or the publishers' distributors at a price less than what they ask the customer to pay. They make a profit and support their infrastructure.

Everyone in the chain from raw materials to final delivery jacks up the price and takes a cut. The real question is are distribution of cuts reasonable and fair.

Seriously though, all these analogies are worthless bullshit. Everyone knows this has absolutely nothing at all to do with Apple getting "their fair share" and everything to do with locking users into the Apple ecosystem before Google and others crack the tablet UX code and flood the market with iPad clones.

Actually that is definitely not what this is. Paying for a subscription for Hulu from the iPhone and not their website doesn't lock you in. Buying a kindle book from inside the iPhone doesn't lock you in. In each it's just a question of where your purchase is made, the service you get from the purchase can still be consumed on a different device so long as Hulu and Amazon continue to support that model.

This is 100% about Apple trying to capture some of the value of the transactions that iPhones, iPads and the App Store enable

Monopolistic, huh? I guess the iPad is the ONLY place to buy Kindle books or watch Hulu, right? Stop throwing around the "M" word when you have no idea what you're talking about. Happens far too often.

It is monopolistic. They are controlling their ecosystem so that the competition within the device itself is not free.

The cut that Best Buy takes when it sells just about anything is primarily because it DELIVERS CUSTOMERS and provides a purchasing environment.

That is what Apple does. Shouldn't Apple get a cut? They aren't a charity. Do you not agree that Apple provides value to developers? It provides a digital environment (like a brick-and-mortar store) where a HUGE number of customers with credit cards on file can purchase content; further, it provides an extremely easy way for said customers to purchase additional content. Is that not valuable? Apple isn't saying developers can't sell their content independently. They just can't advertise that fact INSIDE Apple's STORE, which includes In-App.

If you're hung up on the whole "distribution cost" (which is not all companies pay retail stores for), then change the analogy to a third-party salesperson who sells on commission. When a salesperson delivers a customer to a company, they get a percentage cut. If they continue to sell additional products or services to that customer, they get a cut. Usually, the company is not allowed to actively "poach" that customer from the salesperson, as that is their customer that they delivered. If the company doesn't want to pay a commission, they can deliver their own customers. But the company usually can't contact that customer and tell them they'll sell it to them cheaper if they buy directly instead of through the salesperson.

It sounds like you're against capitalism. Apple is following the principles of capitalism: if you provide value, you can demand compensation. If people don't think the value provided warrants the cost, they don't pay.

So what cut do you think that Windows and MS should get from iTunes? Or is it that the iPad is a store, and Windows is not - even though it provides a customer base for Apple - and a developer environment etc.

We keep going around in circles. As a major Apple fan this kind of bugs me - Apple is doing something uncompetitive, something which may reduce choice, or increase costs on the iPad ( or both) and we're cheering like idiots. Making up excuses which they haven't even bothered with.

Pay no attention to Gwydion. This has all been explained to him over and over again. At this point, it's clear that he's just a troll.

I did say I was going to report your posts if you called long standing commentators here who merely disagree with you a troll. That post was reported and all your previous accusations of trolling will be when I get around to it.

I don't see how this is anything but monopolistic business practices, even after dropping the ridiculous requirement that in app pricing is the same price as elsewhere. (Which I am sure would have triggered an investigation had they not backed down.) I do love Apple's products and I respect their right to approve or deny apps, but in my opinion these subscription policies cross the line.

...It doesn't mean what you think it means. There is nothing monopolistic about it, period. Try using language that accurately expresses your thoughts instead of going for large words for which you have clue as to their actual meaning. Apple OWNS iOS, the App Store that serves it and makes the rules concerning how to use it. You can call them anal, draconian, overbearing but they cannot by definition (because in business, MONOPOLY has a very specific definiftion) monopolize what they in fact own. It is tantamount to you be charged with monopolistic practices for your car. You own your car, and can pretty much do with what you please. You can drive by yourself, you can pick up passengers for hire (subject to applicable local laws), you can give friends rides or even keep a fish pond in the back seat. It's your car to do with as you please. The exact same situation is in place for the App Store - Apple set it up, made the rules and invited developers to participate under those rules. Whether or not those subscription policies "cross a line" is determined by acceptance by developers, not you or anyone else.

Same this for the Android Marketplace - Google owns it but keeps the rules to a very minimum. But they can if they wish impose more rules if they desire because Google owns the Android Marketplace.

If you are going to insist on being an ass, at least demonstrate the intelligence to be a smart one

For me anyway, it's time to start evaluating alternatives to Apple products.

heh. You should, as an intelligent consumer (and not a fanboy), do this constantly. I scan the markets constantly to see what's out there and what is a best fit for my needs set. While I have a number of Apple products and have been very pleased with them, they do not automatically get preference over someone else until I've had a chance to look over the existing alternatives.

If you are going to insist on being an ass, at least demonstrate the intelligence to be a smart one

It is monopolistic. They are controlling their ecosystem so that the competition within the device itself is not free.

Except the iPad, iPhone, etc. compete in the overall computer and device market, and do not warrant a large enough share of the market to ever be considered a monopoly.

"Monopoly" in a legal sense is a very specific term and has specific requirements, at least in the US. Further, Apple isn't preventing competition. Companies like Netflix can operate just fine. Apple relaxed any rules that could be considered a colloquial "monopoly".

If Best Buy sold physical books in their store, yes they would take a cut.

The analogy is PHYSICAL TO DIGITAL.

If Amazon or another company is going to sell content in Apple's store (which includes In-App), Apple has a right to take a cut.

All Apple says is that Amazon or other developers can't post a "sign" saying "BUY OUR PRODUCTS CHEAPER ON OUR SITE". Best Buy wouldn't allow a similar sign in their store.

The analogy is that the App Store is equivalent to a brick-and-mortar store and doesn't have any different policies. It has nothing to do with warehousing and distribution; it has to do with delivering customers.

Selling content in-app is NOT equivalent to selling via the App Store. That's what it comes down to. If you can't grasp that concept, there's really nothing that can be done.

How about this analogy: Best Buy sells magazines. Best Buy starts demanding a cut from all subscriptions and products that are purchased from that magazine. After all, by your reasoning Best Buy delivered that customer.

If Best Buy sold books, then absolutely they'd take a cut. But Apple isn't selling or even hosting Amazon's electronic Kindle books. All Apple is doing with in-app purchases is forcing Amazon to use them as the transaction processor. I'm fairly certain Amazon can handle that just fine without Apple's help.

Or if you're going to argue about Apple delivering customers to Amazon, how about the counter argument? How many customers does Amazon deliver to Apple? How many people were going to purchase a Kindle and decided to get an iPad since there was an app for the device? By the logic you've espoused, Amazon should get some amount of compensation from Apple for that customer. How many people choose an iPad because of apps like Netflix, Hulu Plus and Kindle? Clearly, Apple owes those companies some compensation.